Lennart Nacke, PhD
@lennartnacke.com
🧠 Tenured brain, fresh daily takes. Maximum citations but sanity questionable. The prof your prof follows for daily research & AI takes. Quality wins. University Research Chair & Tenured Full Professor.
BLACK FRIDAY SALES ➜ https://store.lennartnacke.com/
BLACK FRIDAY SALES ➜ https://store.lennartnacke.com/
Pinned
Lennart Nacke, PhD
@lennartnacke.com
· Dec 6
Mini Masterclass: How to Write a CHI Paper
Join Professor Dr. Lennart Nacke for a FREE 30-minute masterclass about How to Write a CHI Paper. Become a smarter research author and master the basics of w...
www.youtube.com
The masterclass is this Saturday, Dec 7 at 11 AM Eastern.
Join here (bookmark): www.youtube.com/live/vpj2FT...
See you tomorrow.
Join here (bookmark): www.youtube.com/live/vpj2FT...
See you tomorrow.
PhD students who wait for writing time never finish.
PhD students who schedule 90 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday?
They defend on time.
Snack writing isn't about motivation.
It's about making writing as mandatory as your seminar.
Book it. Protect it. Show up.
PhD students who schedule 90 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday?
They defend on time.
Snack writing isn't about motivation.
It's about making writing as mandatory as your seminar.
Book it. Protect it. Show up.
January 17, 2026 at 7:03 PM
PhD students who wait for writing time never finish.
PhD students who schedule 90 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday?
They defend on time.
Snack writing isn't about motivation.
It's about making writing as mandatory as your seminar.
Book it. Protect it. Show up.
PhD students who schedule 90 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday?
They defend on time.
Snack writing isn't about motivation.
It's about making writing as mandatory as your seminar.
Book it. Protect it. Show up.
Extension papers ship fastest.
Why?
Methods are validated.
Reviewers understand the context.
You're building, not defending novelty.
If your lab needs 3 papers this year, at least 2 should be extensions.
Gaps are sexy.
Extensions are systematic.
Why?
Methods are validated.
Reviewers understand the context.
You're building, not defending novelty.
If your lab needs 3 papers this year, at least 2 should be extensions.
Gaps are sexy.
Extensions are systematic.
January 17, 2026 at 7:03 AM
Extension papers ship fastest.
Why?
Methods are validated.
Reviewers understand the context.
You're building, not defending novelty.
If your lab needs 3 papers this year, at least 2 should be extensions.
Gaps are sexy.
Extensions are systematic.
Why?
Methods are validated.
Reviewers understand the context.
You're building, not defending novelty.
If your lab needs 3 papers this year, at least 2 should be extensions.
Gaps are sexy.
Extensions are systematic.
3 routines that doubled my research output:
1. Writing block: 8-10 AM, no meetings
2. Weekly pipeline review: what's submitted, what's stuck
3. Monthly system audit: what's working, what's broken
Output follows structure.
Structure follows routine.
1. Writing block: 8-10 AM, no meetings
2. Weekly pipeline review: what's submitted, what's stuck
3. Monthly system audit: what's working, what's broken
Output follows structure.
Structure follows routine.
January 17, 2026 at 1:00 AM
3 routines that doubled my research output:
1. Writing block: 8-10 AM, no meetings
2. Weekly pipeline review: what's submitted, what's stuck
3. Monthly system audit: what's working, what's broken
Output follows structure.
Structure follows routine.
1. Writing block: 8-10 AM, no meetings
2. Weekly pipeline review: what's submitted, what's stuck
3. Monthly system audit: what's working, what's broken
Output follows structure.
Structure follows routine.
5 steps to developing a point of view:
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
January 16, 2026 at 6:59 PM
5 steps to developing a point of view:
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
1. Map the terrain
2. Build bridges to existing work
3. Shift your lens
4. Weigh the evidence
5. Commit to your stance
Do this, and panels will notice.
Your paper exists for one of three reasons:
1. Filling a gap in the literature
2. Extending existing findings
3. Correcting flawed previous research
If you can't clearly state which one, reviewers will reject you.
Finding your niche isn't a choice.
It's essential for making it.
1. Filling a gap in the literature
2. Extending existing findings
3. Correcting flawed previous research
If you can't clearly state which one, reviewers will reject you.
Finding your niche isn't a choice.
It's essential for making it.
January 16, 2026 at 5:56 PM
Your paper exists for one of three reasons:
1. Filling a gap in the literature
2. Extending existing findings
3. Correcting flawed previous research
If you can't clearly state which one, reviewers will reject you.
Finding your niche isn't a choice.
It's essential for making it.
1. Filling a gap in the literature
2. Extending existing findings
3. Correcting flawed previous research
If you can't clearly state which one, reviewers will reject you.
Finding your niche isn't a choice.
It's essential for making it.
Train students to become inquisitive explorers.
Papers will follow.
Conference talks will follow.
Patents will follow.
But if you force publication before exploration is complete, you get rushed work in garbage journals.
Papers will follow.
Conference talks will follow.
Patents will follow.
But if you force publication before exploration is complete, you get rushed work in garbage journals.
January 16, 2026 at 12:57 PM
Train students to become inquisitive explorers.
Papers will follow.
Conference talks will follow.
Patents will follow.
But if you force publication before exploration is complete, you get rushed work in garbage journals.
Papers will follow.
Conference talks will follow.
Patents will follow.
But if you force publication before exploration is complete, you get rushed work in garbage journals.
The best part about Major Revisions?
The reviewers already told you how to fix everything.
No guessing.
No mystery.
Just follow the roadmap they gave you.
Treat it like a conditional acceptance.
Because that's exactly what it is.
The reviewers already told you how to fix everything.
No guessing.
No mystery.
Just follow the roadmap they gave you.
Treat it like a conditional acceptance.
Because that's exactly what it is.
January 16, 2026 at 6:58 AM
The best part about Major Revisions?
The reviewers already told you how to fix everything.
No guessing.
No mystery.
Just follow the roadmap they gave you.
Treat it like a conditional acceptance.
Because that's exactly what it is.
The reviewers already told you how to fix everything.
No guessing.
No mystery.
Just follow the roadmap they gave you.
Treat it like a conditional acceptance.
Because that's exactly what it is.
PhD students who organize lit reviews by author waste months.
PhD students who use a synthesis matrix?
They write lit reviews in weeks.
The literature crosswalk isn't fancy.
It's a spreadsheet where themes meet papers.
Rows are concepts. Columns are sources.
Cells are substance.
PhD students who use a synthesis matrix?
They write lit reviews in weeks.
The literature crosswalk isn't fancy.
It's a spreadsheet where themes meet papers.
Rows are concepts. Columns are sources.
Cells are substance.
January 16, 2026 at 1:03 AM
PhD students who organize lit reviews by author waste months.
PhD students who use a synthesis matrix?
They write lit reviews in weeks.
The literature crosswalk isn't fancy.
It's a spreadsheet where themes meet papers.
Rows are concepts. Columns are sources.
Cells are substance.
PhD students who use a synthesis matrix?
They write lit reviews in weeks.
The literature crosswalk isn't fancy.
It's a spreadsheet where themes meet papers.
Rows are concepts. Columns are sources.
Cells are substance.
Academia's dirty secret:
We know everything about someone's research.
We know nothing about their life.
The student working two jobs.
The technician months away from loved ones.
The postdoc navigating a family crisis.
You see them every day.
Ask how they're actually doing.
We know everything about someone's research.
We know nothing about their life.
The student working two jobs.
The technician months away from loved ones.
The postdoc navigating a family crisis.
You see them every day.
Ask how they're actually doing.
January 15, 2026 at 6:57 PM
Academia's dirty secret:
We know everything about someone's research.
We know nothing about their life.
The student working two jobs.
The technician months away from loved ones.
The postdoc navigating a family crisis.
You see them every day.
Ask how they're actually doing.
We know everything about someone's research.
We know nothing about their life.
The student working two jobs.
The technician months away from loved ones.
The postdoc navigating a family crisis.
You see them every day.
Ask how they're actually doing.
What I thought would make me a productive writer:
• Sabbatical leave
• Weekend marathons
• 8-hour writing binges
What actually makes me productive:
• 30-minute daily sessions
• Consistent location
• Stopping mid-sentence
Everyone chases the 1st list, but it usually ends in burnout.
• Sabbatical leave
• Weekend marathons
• 8-hour writing binges
What actually makes me productive:
• 30-minute daily sessions
• Consistent location
• Stopping mid-sentence
Everyone chases the 1st list, but it usually ends in burnout.
January 15, 2026 at 1:12 PM
What I thought would make me a productive writer:
• Sabbatical leave
• Weekend marathons
• 8-hour writing binges
What actually makes me productive:
• 30-minute daily sessions
• Consistent location
• Stopping mid-sentence
Everyone chases the 1st list, but it usually ends in burnout.
• Sabbatical leave
• Weekend marathons
• 8-hour writing binges
What actually makes me productive:
• 30-minute daily sessions
• Consistent location
• Stopping mid-sentence
Everyone chases the 1st list, but it usually ends in burnout.
5 reasons most papers get desk rejected:
1. Wrong journal fit
2. Weak research question
3. Methods lack rigour
4. Contribution is unclear
5. Writing is unreadable
Fix these before you submit.
Revision won't save structural problems.
1. Wrong journal fit
2. Weak research question
3. Methods lack rigour
4. Contribution is unclear
5. Writing is unreadable
Fix these before you submit.
Revision won't save structural problems.
January 15, 2026 at 7:03 AM
5 reasons most papers get desk rejected:
1. Wrong journal fit
2. Weak research question
3. Methods lack rigour
4. Contribution is unclear
5. Writing is unreadable
Fix these before you submit.
Revision won't save structural problems.
1. Wrong journal fit
2. Weak research question
3. Methods lack rigour
4. Contribution is unclear
5. Writing is unreadable
Fix these before you submit.
Revision won't save structural problems.
Your dean praises your lab's publication record.
Nobody mentions the failed experiments you absorbed.
The student who quit and left a gap in your team.
The project pivot that cost six months of progress.
The nights you stayed late to fix someone else's mistake.
Your metrics shine.
Nobody mentions the failed experiments you absorbed.
The student who quit and left a gap in your team.
The project pivot that cost six months of progress.
The nights you stayed late to fix someone else's mistake.
Your metrics shine.
January 15, 2026 at 6:02 AM
Your dean praises your lab's publication record.
Nobody mentions the failed experiments you absorbed.
The student who quit and left a gap in your team.
The project pivot that cost six months of progress.
The nights you stayed late to fix someone else's mistake.
Your metrics shine.
Nobody mentions the failed experiments you absorbed.
The student who quit and left a gap in your team.
The project pivot that cost six months of progress.
The nights you stayed late to fix someone else's mistake.
Your metrics shine.
The PhD is a resilience bootcamp under cover as an academic degree.
You enter thinking you'll master a field.
You leave knowing how to:
• Keep working despite chronic uncertainty
• Recover from devastating feedback
• Rebuild when your approach fails
• Defend your ideas under fire
You enter thinking you'll master a field.
You leave knowing how to:
• Keep working despite chronic uncertainty
• Recover from devastating feedback
• Rebuild when your approach fails
• Defend your ideas under fire
January 15, 2026 at 12:58 AM
The PhD is a resilience bootcamp under cover as an academic degree.
You enter thinking you'll master a field.
You leave knowing how to:
• Keep working despite chronic uncertainty
• Recover from devastating feedback
• Rebuild when your approach fails
• Defend your ideas under fire
You enter thinking you'll master a field.
You leave knowing how to:
• Keep working despite chronic uncertainty
• Recover from devastating feedback
• Rebuild when your approach fails
• Defend your ideas under fire
Grant reviewers fund different entry points differently.
Gaps: High risk, high reward funding (R01, ERC)
Extensions: Incremental funding (pilot grants, industry)
Corrections: Good luck getting funded
Your entry point determines your funding strategy.
Gaps: High risk, high reward funding (R01, ERC)
Extensions: Incremental funding (pilot grants, industry)
Corrections: Good luck getting funded
Your entry point determines your funding strategy.
January 14, 2026 at 7:02 PM
Grant reviewers fund different entry points differently.
Gaps: High risk, high reward funding (R01, ERC)
Extensions: Incremental funding (pilot grants, industry)
Corrections: Good luck getting funded
Your entry point determines your funding strategy.
Gaps: High risk, high reward funding (R01, ERC)
Extensions: Incremental funding (pilot grants, industry)
Corrections: Good luck getting funded
Your entry point determines your funding strategy.
3 lessons from 300+ paper submissions:
1. Reviewers read abstracts, skim intros, scrutinize methods
2. Clear figures buy you goodwill
3. Defensive writing signals weak arguments
Write for busy skeptics.
Because that's who's reading.
1. Reviewers read abstracts, skim intros, scrutinize methods
2. Clear figures buy you goodwill
3. Defensive writing signals weak arguments
Write for busy skeptics.
Because that's who's reading.
January 14, 2026 at 4:03 PM
3 lessons from 300+ paper submissions:
1. Reviewers read abstracts, skim intros, scrutinize methods
2. Clear figures buy you goodwill
3. Defensive writing signals weak arguments
Write for busy skeptics.
Because that's who's reading.
1. Reviewers read abstracts, skim intros, scrutinize methods
2. Clear figures buy you goodwill
3. Defensive writing signals weak arguments
Write for busy skeptics.
Because that's who's reading.
Your rejection rate drops when you write consistently.
Not because you're smarter.
Because 90-minute sessions let you revise before submitting.
Snack writing = time to catch your own mistakes.
Big blocks create rushed submissions.
Short sessions create polished papers.
Not because you're smarter.
Because 90-minute sessions let you revise before submitting.
Snack writing = time to catch your own mistakes.
Big blocks create rushed submissions.
Short sessions create polished papers.
January 14, 2026 at 7:04 AM
Your rejection rate drops when you write consistently.
Not because you're smarter.
Because 90-minute sessions let you revise before submitting.
Snack writing = time to catch your own mistakes.
Big blocks create rushed submissions.
Short sessions create polished papers.
Not because you're smarter.
Because 90-minute sessions let you revise before submitting.
Snack writing = time to catch your own mistakes.
Big blocks create rushed submissions.
Short sessions create polished papers.
5 benefits of using AI in academic writing:
1. Faster first drafts
2. Clearer argument structure
3. Better lit review synthesis
4. Stronger grant narratives
5. More time for deep thinking
But verify every claim.
AI gets details wrong.
1. Faster first drafts
2. Clearer argument structure
3. Better lit review synthesis
4. Stronger grant narratives
5. More time for deep thinking
But verify every claim.
AI gets details wrong.
January 14, 2026 at 3:56 AM
5 benefits of using AI in academic writing:
1. Faster first drafts
2. Clearer argument structure
3. Better lit review synthesis
4. Stronger grant narratives
5. More time for deep thinking
But verify every claim.
AI gets details wrong.
1. Faster first drafts
2. Clearer argument structure
3. Better lit review synthesis
4. Stronger grant narratives
5. More time for deep thinking
But verify every claim.
AI gets details wrong.
Ultimate truth about PhD application rejection:
Getting rejected from a fully funded offer doesn't mean you weren't good enough.
It means 23 or more other candidates applied for the same spot.
And one of them had exactly what that specific PI needed for their next grant.
Getting rejected from a fully funded offer doesn't mean you weren't good enough.
It means 23 or more other candidates applied for the same spot.
And one of them had exactly what that specific PI needed for their next grant.
January 14, 2026 at 12:58 AM
Ultimate truth about PhD application rejection:
Getting rejected from a fully funded offer doesn't mean you weren't good enough.
It means 23 or more other candidates applied for the same spot.
And one of them had exactly what that specific PI needed for their next grant.
Getting rejected from a fully funded offer doesn't mean you weren't good enough.
It means 23 or more other candidates applied for the same spot.
And one of them had exactly what that specific PI needed for their next grant.
Entry point selection predicts publication speed.
Track your lab's data:
Gap papers: How many months?
Extension papers: How many months?
Correction papers: How many months?
Your past timelines predict future capacity.
Plan accordingly.
Track your lab's data:
Gap papers: How many months?
Extension papers: How many months?
Correction papers: How many months?
Your past timelines predict future capacity.
Plan accordingly.
January 13, 2026 at 6:56 PM
Entry point selection predicts publication speed.
Track your lab's data:
Gap papers: How many months?
Extension papers: How many months?
Correction papers: How many months?
Your past timelines predict future capacity.
Plan accordingly.
Track your lab's data:
Gap papers: How many months?
Extension papers: How many months?
Correction papers: How many months?
Your past timelines predict future capacity.
Plan accordingly.
Most academics believe the big lie about writing blocks.
They think they need 4-hour stretches to make progress.
So they wait for breaks. Wait for sabbatical. Wait for summer.
Meanwhile, their drafts collect dust and their ideas go stale.
Here's what actually works:
They think they need 4-hour stretches to make progress.
So they wait for breaks. Wait for sabbatical. Wait for summer.
Meanwhile, their drafts collect dust and their ideas go stale.
Here's what actually works:
January 13, 2026 at 1:16 PM
Most academics believe the big lie about writing blocks.
They think they need 4-hour stretches to make progress.
So they wait for breaks. Wait for sabbatical. Wait for summer.
Meanwhile, their drafts collect dust and their ideas go stale.
Here's what actually works:
They think they need 4-hour stretches to make progress.
So they wait for breaks. Wait for sabbatical. Wait for summer.
Meanwhile, their drafts collect dust and their ideas go stale.
Here's what actually works:
Someone needs to create a Journal of Half-Finished Papers.
In the abstract, you explain why you abandoned it.
That journal would teach us more about research reality than any impact factor ever could.
Because knowing when to quit is as important as knowing what to pursue.
Maybe more important.
In the abstract, you explain why you abandoned it.
That journal would teach us more about research reality than any impact factor ever could.
Because knowing when to quit is as important as knowing what to pursue.
Maybe more important.
January 13, 2026 at 7:04 AM
Someone needs to create a Journal of Half-Finished Papers.
In the abstract, you explain why you abandoned it.
That journal would teach us more about research reality than any impact factor ever could.
Because knowing when to quit is as important as knowing what to pursue.
Maybe more important.
In the abstract, you explain why you abandoned it.
That journal would teach us more about research reality than any impact factor ever could.
Because knowing when to quit is as important as knowing what to pursue.
Maybe more important.
Publication is the byproduct of PhD work.
Not the prerequisite.
When you reverse this, students optimize for the wrong thing.
They chase journals that accept fast.
Not journals that matter.
And predatory publishers feast.
Not the prerequisite.
When you reverse this, students optimize for the wrong thing.
They chase journals that accept fast.
Not journals that matter.
And predatory publishers feast.
January 13, 2026 at 5:59 AM
Publication is the byproduct of PhD work.
Not the prerequisite.
When you reverse this, students optimize for the wrong thing.
They chase journals that accept fast.
Not journals that matter.
And predatory publishers feast.
Not the prerequisite.
When you reverse this, students optimize for the wrong thing.
They chase journals that accept fast.
Not journals that matter.
And predatory publishers feast.
4 insights from 20 years of supervising PhDs:
1. Vague questions kill timelines
2. Isolation kills motivation
3. Perfectionism kills output
4. Systems save everyone
Most PhD problems aren't intellectual.
They're structural.
1. Vague questions kill timelines
2. Isolation kills motivation
3. Perfectionism kills output
4. Systems save everyone
Most PhD problems aren't intellectual.
They're structural.
January 12, 2026 at 9:59 PM
4 insights from 20 years of supervising PhDs:
1. Vague questions kill timelines
2. Isolation kills motivation
3. Perfectionism kills output
4. Systems save everyone
Most PhD problems aren't intellectual.
They're structural.
1. Vague questions kill timelines
2. Isolation kills motivation
3. Perfectionism kills output
4. Systems save everyone
Most PhD problems aren't intellectual.
They're structural.
Your lab output stalls when students can't identify their entry point.
Three types matter:
1. Gap filling: Nobody studied this
2. Extension: Build on solid work
3. Correction: Fix flawed conclusions
Most PhD students waste 8 months because they never chose one.
Three types matter:
1. Gap filling: Nobody studied this
2. Extension: Build on solid work
3. Correction: Fix flawed conclusions
Most PhD students waste 8 months because they never chose one.
January 12, 2026 at 6:59 PM
Your lab output stalls when students can't identify their entry point.
Three types matter:
1. Gap filling: Nobody studied this
2. Extension: Build on solid work
3. Correction: Fix flawed conclusions
Most PhD students waste 8 months because they never chose one.
Three types matter:
1. Gap filling: Nobody studied this
2. Extension: Build on solid work
3. Correction: Fix flawed conclusions
Most PhD students waste 8 months because they never chose one.
AI doesn't write my papers.
It removes the friction of starting them.
I use it to:
• Draft rough outlines
• Summarize 20 papers in minutes
• Rewrite clunky sentences
The activation energy drops to zero.
Suddenly I'm editing, not staring at blank pages.
It removes the friction of starting them.
I use it to:
• Draft rough outlines
• Summarize 20 papers in minutes
• Rewrite clunky sentences
The activation energy drops to zero.
Suddenly I'm editing, not staring at blank pages.
January 12, 2026 at 7:03 AM
AI doesn't write my papers.
It removes the friction of starting them.
I use it to:
• Draft rough outlines
• Summarize 20 papers in minutes
• Rewrite clunky sentences
The activation energy drops to zero.
Suddenly I'm editing, not staring at blank pages.
It removes the friction of starting them.
I use it to:
• Draft rough outlines
• Summarize 20 papers in minutes
• Rewrite clunky sentences
The activation energy drops to zero.
Suddenly I'm editing, not staring at blank pages.